Matrix Games Forums

I agree Mike, and why bother with the renaming at all? I believe each "Hornet II & Lexington II" already had a name...just stick with the original names.

I'd rather have all the CV's built than making sure Enterprise gets replaced..

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I'd rather have all the CV's built than making sure Enterprise gets replaced..

THAT we can fix. Look for it in RHS. Or if you want to lift the ships into your own mod, let me know.

But if you really need ALL the USN carriers you are not a very skilled player - talk about overkill!

Jeeze!! I have never seen that post Ron,...that's a lot of missing ships!!!!

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Jeeze!! I have never seen that post Ron,...that's a lot of missing ships!!!!

They weren't missing, just simply renamed after ships that had been already sunk in the war. The total number of hulls built IRL didn't change.

Chez

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

I am sorry, I missed something here [&:], but didn't the whole "US carrier spawn" issue get argued over into infinity during the beta testing and early on when the game first came out?

I thought this thread initially started out as a comment on whether there was bias to favor one of the sides in an attempt to give either that side a chance to win the game?

I still believe that in this game and every other historical war simulation you can not factor in the real world portion of luck(fate or whatever you want to call it) that seems to get involved in human interactions since day one. I think that the way the "dice" roll in this game is kind of suspect, but it is all I really have to fight all of the Pacific War during world war 2. Not just the battle's of Midway and Coral sea or the carrier battles around the 'Canal. So I am thankful for this game to be out here, even with the bugs and other oddities that it has.

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.

I agree. Although I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.

I agree. Although I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.


I agree. Although I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.


Agree.

Not to be picky (but since everyone else is), the DB could care less about a ship's name.

There's no index on the name. The index is the ship ID number. You could have every ship in WitP named "Enterprise" if you wanted to. It would be confusing for you (the player), but the engine doesn't give a crap. So I "respectfully disagree" that the ships with duplicate names were left out for the sake of the engine.

The engine doesn't care. They were not left out because the engine couldn't handle it. It most certainly can.

-F-

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in. Don Bowen pretty much figured out a way to make a workable non respawn version (something about utilising all the slots meant for replacement/respawned ships I think) and I'd love to get the details so a non respawn CHS can be released. Otherwise, both players would have to keep track of every respawned ship and keep it in harbor.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in. Don Bowen pretty much figured out a way to make a workable non respawn version (something about utilising all the slots meant for replacement/respawned ships I think) and I'd love to get the details so a non respawn CHS can be released. Otherwise, both players would have to keep track of every respawned ship and keep it in harbor.

You are right - if ALL slots are full the code skips respawn. But when I tried to go that way - it is easy now so many name slots are full - I found we need respawn for minor vessels. Otherwise you run out of minesweepers, subchasers, PT boats, landing craft. There is no way to have all of these in the database at one time - there are not enough slots for them alone.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Why not forget the re-spawn completely and just have the ships arrive as they did historically. For people who worry about such things, give players the ability to re-name ships if they want to. Then if they want to have a Hornet II, you can just re-name one of the incoming CV's. Most people won't worry about it. But make sure that ships do arrive as they actually did, regardless of what they are called. And do away with Japanese Production (which only creates totally ahistoric OB's) and use actual production figures.

Please tell me HOW to "forget" such a rule? It is hard coded. Short of somehow getting to the top of the Matrix fix list, I see no theoretical way to actually do that. I considered filling all ship name slots - but I have concluded the respawn rule has an IMPORTANT function with respect to small vessels like minesweepers. We simply cannot put all the small vessels in the game - there are not that many slots!

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
...I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
...I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in.

Ron, I wasn't talking about adding in ships from the groups that respawn. I was talking about adding ships from the smaller classes that don't respawn. It is a separate issue.

ORIGINAL: Feinder
There's no index on the name. The index is the ship ID number. You could have every ship in WitP named "Enterprise" if you wanted to. It would be confusing for you (the player), but the engine doesn't give a crap. So I "respectfully disagree" that the ships with duplicate names were left out for the sake of the engine.

I don't think we need the respawn for minor vessels, there are tons of them already. Perhaps not having a respawn feature will curb some of the universal banzai usage of naval vessels. I hate losing even the smallest and never send them on pointless or forlorn hope missions..